Iranian Foreign Minister Speaks to ABC News
TEHRAN, Iran, Jan. 6, 2007 — -- Iran's foreign minister spoke frankly to ABC News' Jim Sciutto about Iran's nuclear ambitions and its role in the Iraq War.
Jim Sciutto, ABC News: So President Bush said today that the U.S. would be willing to talk to Iran specifically about Iraq, but only on the condition that Iran stop its uranium enrichment. Is that a condition that Iran is willing to meet?
Manoucher Mottaki, Iranian foreign minister: In the name of God, thank you very much. I welcome you to visit Iran, and due to the question which you have raised, I think if any party is going to put any condition for any negotiation, that is the Iranian side not the American side. And that is why, due to nuclear issue, we always have announced that we are ready for negotiation, and our priority is the option based on having a comprehensive solution based on negotiation. Due to Iraq -- if you do mean for negotiation in our understanding the recent support of Mr. James Baker Hamilton could show 50 percent of the truth or the realities and even due to half of the realities -- we can very clearly find out that the American policies in Iraq is failed. And everybody now in the United States is talking about the necessity of changing the policies. And in our understanding that, that is the most important area which the U.S. administration should take into consideration. And changing the policy is not in talking. Only that must show itself in practice. And that's why without changing of, I mean practical changing of the policies towards Iraq, we don't see any, any, you know, result for any negotiation.
Q: Would Iran be willing to speak to the U.S. about helping to calm the situation in Iraq, and if so under what conditions?
A: Deciding about any negotiation needs some, you know, preparation. And the most prime preparation, as I mentioned, is the U.S. administration's decision to change its policies. For example, we have two main areas of difficulties in Iraq -- the two sides of a coin. One side is instability, terrorist activities. And the other side is continuation of the presence of foreign troops. Any solution should catch these two important elements, what is the policy of the United States. And parallely, there must be decision for solving the instability terrorist activity, and in secular situation in Iraq, as well as the necessity of the (inaudible) of the foreign terms…
Q: Does Iran--
A: …of that country.
Q: Iran wants a timetable for withdrawal. Is that Iran's condition?
A: We are not talking now for about how and when they should withdraw from Iraq. That should come through the negotiation between the Iraqi's government and the Americans. But it must be announced that that is the most important things.
Q: If it is announced, a date, a prospective date, would Iran, would that meet the conditions that Iran has to talk to the U.S.?
A: Definitely, definitely, announcing of the withdrawal. Then they needs, they need some, you know, plan of action and time table and any, any related preparation for such decision. And in such circumstances, Iran is in the position to help with the withdrawal of the foreign troops from Iraq. At the same time, we do believe that transferring the security management to Iraqi government will make possible the Iraqi government, the monarchy's government administration, will be able, is capable to, to manage the country and to, to solve the security problem. This is our understanding. Because the Iraqis know better than anybody else how to behave with the Iraqis. When I visited Baghdad just after forming of the permanent government of the monarchy, I raised this question to Mr. Rizbari: How you cannot make safe and secure your capital? When Baghdad is not safe and secure, how you want to rule the country all over the country? He told me, "We can make secure Baghdad, but the problem is there is no a concentrated center to make decision. And Dargon is there, CIA is there, secretary of state of the United State is there, our army's are there and everybody is there, and the most difficulty part is making decision." And if it goes to one place, which is the, the legitimate government of Iraq, I am sure they will be able to make secure their capital first then continue to guard the part of the country.
Q: Just so I am clear, is Iran willing to talk to the U.S. just about the Iraq issue, assuming, as you say, the U.S. had some sort of timetable and separate from the nuclear issue? Or are you saying that you have to discuss all these things in one comprehensive agreement?
A: This is the third time which you are asking this.
Q: Yeah I just want to make sure I am clear.
A; No, no, no. Iran is willing. Iran is not willing, you know-- This is some technical point which I should clarify that we, we are not asking for any negotiation. Negotiation is not in our agenda for the time being. United State has a problem in Iraq. First of all, they should accept that their policy is failed in Iraq. They should accept the basic approach to the situation is to change their policies, practical step is to make decision to withdraw from Iraq. If they are concerned about the security in Iraq, then we do believe transferring the management of the security to Iraqi's government, they will make them capable to, to have their prepared approach to the situation. This is the real picture. This is the reality on the stand and, you know, you know there are the problem or the question is not negotiations. We are not asking for a negotiation. I don't want to say we are against negotiation, but there must be some reason for negotiation.
Q: And what would that be?
A: If the negotiation is for Iraq, it needs preparation. We do not see yet any changes in the mind in the speaking and the most important in practice, practical approach of the Americans that they are going to change their policies in Iraq. Unfortunately, the same situation is going on in Afghanistan. We consider the situation in Afghanistan very shaky, and five years ago the American administration said we are going to Afghanistan for establishment of stability and security in Afghanistan. A few months ago Mr. Kofi Annan was here. He told me in the meeting that the main problem in Afghanistan is instability, is the stability and the security. It shows very easy that some part of the policies were wrong. And somebody do they, are they waiting for another Baker-Hamilton's report on Afghanistan to reconsider their policies? This is the realities in our region. We are living in this region. Unfortunately, most of the American people do not know what is going on in this region. They don't, maybe most of the people don't know where is the Middle East, and even one of the official -- of course not in the ministry of foreign affairs -- was asked where is Iraq. He said, "I think somewhere in (inaudible) in that region." They don't know about the situation here. Does the people of the U.S. know what is going on in Lebanon, what happened in Lebanon, what is going on in Palestine? The western countries and the U.S. are talking always about democracy. What does that mean? Do they mean that democracy is based, based on the people wish what they decide? Okay, they have made a decision through a free and fair election in Palestine for Hamas. Should we follow here the doublist and dart approach, or we have good democracy and bad democracy we have good Taliban and bad Taliban? No, no, no. We should have equal approach to the equal issues.
Q: That's all right. You know the Bush administration accuses Iran of supporting, of sabotaging the situation in Iraq -- supporting Shiite militias with money and arms, but also sending technology for roadside bombs to some of the insurgents. What is your reaction to that charge?
A: These are allegations--
Q: Any founding--
A: …by Mr. Bush administration which is not proved. But we have the facts and approved plan of the Americans and British against Iraqi's people. They are following their burned grand policy or strategy for the time they are leaving Iraq. Because the British have very rich experience in the history-- They have been in the sub continent. Before leaving they put the dispute out Kashmir. They have put so many disputes in our region, everywhere, British were there. In Africa, you will find the same policy. Here the Iraqi's people. The Iraqi's were living together for several centuries, Sunnis, Shia, Kurdish, Turkmans, all together based on co-existence. What happened nowadays, we do strongly believe that this sectarial fighting in Iraq is a plan from outside not by the Iraqi's people. Not by the Shiites and Sunnis and Imam (inaudible), the, the main leader, the first leader who worked lots to bring all the Muslims together, either Shis or Sunis, all the follower of Islam. At the same time, the international message is unification or unity of all followers of different religions even. This is, this is the basics which we follow here. We do not have any interest from, for the instability, instable situation in Iraq. That is not in our favour. Our national interest, our national security is related to a stable Iraq, not to instable or dis-stable Iraq, and that's very clear. And the funny part of this question is 140,000 U.S. soldiers are in Iraq. That is not interfere, but if Iran support the political process, the government-making process in Iraq, is that interfering Iraq? I think no.
Q: If I can for a moment ask about the nuclear question: The U.S. says that it is going to try to force a vote in the U.N. Security Council before this weekend on sanctions. Russia is sending signals that it may be ready to approve some resolution on Iran's nuclear program. What's your reaction?
A: We consider such resolution illegal, and a wrong step, and a step which will make weak and weaker the security concerns physician in this approach to different international issues. Security Council is the place for making secure the, the international circumstances and atmosphere. The nations should feel that due to Security Council they are getting more, you know, secure position, and they will (inaudible) their security. Unfortunately, in the Security Council, we are witness that one or two specific countries are trying their best to show that one is equal five, one is equal 15. Due to the sanction, if they are looking for the, the nuclear activities, we have the sanction for several years on this issue. And definitely the same situation will continue nothing else. If they are looking for some other proposals for other, you know, targets, we have to consider. But one thing will not be changed, and that is the Iranian nation governments and different parties in Iran. All the nations decided seriously to realise they are right to have nuclear technology, of course, for peaceful purposes. I have in my office the text of the contract and the agreement with U.S. dated 5th March 1957. It means about 50 years ago and the first sentence of this agreement is using nuclear energy is the right of all mankind and all nations. This is what we are saying. United State simply says they have the right to have nuclear weapons and to test the second and third and fourth generation of these weapons. And the others do not have the right to have nuclear energy. That is not a just approach, justice an approached based on justice to their international behaviour. That is the causes of failing their policies today in all around the world. You have come to me with this. Now you can take a picture from this region. You can go to the Latin America. There also you will find the same picture. What's the reason, any candidate for presidential election in the Latin American who has more stronger slogans against the Americans policies, he will win in the election? I do believe that the scholars and the researchers in United States should consider this development in the world. We do believe in the Middle East some new elements are raising which should be considered. Due to nuclear issue, we, as I mentioned at the beginning of this interview, we are the nation of (inaudible). We have 10,000 years history. Our people could keep their unity within all these long history based on co-existence and dialogue among themselves, despite of different ethnics which we have. You know we have cults, we have Turks, we have Turkman, we have Arabs, Banuch and all the other different ethnics in this country, but we are living together for several thousand years. And we are the nation of negotiations for our right to be realised. We do believe the negotiation between Larigani and Salama was cut because of the pressure of the United States for some political reasons. You had your election and it was necessary to, to bring the public opinion in a security circumstances during the election. They had the chance to have come sanction resolution against (inaudible) because of the nuclear testing there and they were looking to have something else and they were thinking that they found Iran. But they have, they have failed in the election.
Q: What does the state of U.S. Iranian relations, in trouble no question, what would Iran require from the U.S. to re-start talks? What concession would that be? Bush said today we want Iran to stop nuclear enrichment, or uranium enrichment. That's his condition. What is Iran's condition?
A: We are not-- We are not doing anything wrong. We are following through the NPT, through IAE rules and regulations to realise our right. Which part of our activity is wrong, is against the law, rules and regulations which we are asked to suspend our enrichment here? Does enrichment is against the IAEA rules and regulations? No. Getting membership of any international convention or treaties has two essential elements. The first one is obligations, and the second element is the rights. We have been committed for the last 36, 37 years in our membership to the NPT, and now we would like to enjoy our membership. Why they are providing us, why they are preventing Iran, would like to prevent Iran? They are not able to prevent Iran, but they would like to prevent Iran to realise its right. Is it because of the nuclear weapons? We do not believe. Mr. Putin said to Dr. Ahmed in the Jardin New York that we are sure you are not looking for nuclear weapons. I am sure the American know that Iran is not seeking, is not looking for nuclear weapons. What's the reason? The reason is they would like to have first-class and second-class nation in the world. The time is over for such, you know, analysis to the international situation. And we should accept that the other nations are also intelligent or clever or able to find out in the field of science, in the field of technology, and that should not be closed, that way should not be closed for the other nations. The time of colonialist period is over and now they are looking for a modernised colonialism -- only six, five, seven or anything which they have decided are able to enter into some areas. That is not acceptable today.
Q: Is there something the U.S. could do to bring Iran back to the table?
A: Iran is on the table.
Q: Ready to talk?
A: Huh?
Q: Ready to talk?
A: If you mean for, for nuclear issue?
Q: I mean for all these issues.
A: For nuclear issue, Iran is ready to talk with all parties (inaudible). Clearly openly.
Q: Even as this vote may come up before the weekend, or does the U.S. have to--
A: Definitely when they are going to, to vote against Iran, it means they are not welcoming any negotiation.
Q: And how about on Iraq? Is there something that U.S. would have to do first for Iran to sit down at the table with the U.S. to discuss solutions for Iraq? Is there something?
A: They should-- They should take some tactical steps politically in the field of (inaudible) from Iraq.
Q: A timetable?
A: I am not talking about timetable, but that should go to their negotiation with the Iraqis.
Q: Because Iraqi officials, Malaki, says he is not ready for U.S. troops to leave or Iraq, is not ready.
A: Malaki a few months ago asked for a withdrawal of the foreign troops from Iraq. It means it is a necessary step which should be taken. Announcing of the withdrawal, in our understanding, will bring tension down.
Q: Is there, speaking in general about U.S. and Iraqi relations-- And I know we don't have much time, but it is very seldom that we as Americans get to speak to you.
A: Which relation?
Q: U.S. and Iranian relations. My apologies. Do you have any hope of them improving -- because on each side the rhetoric rises almost by the week? And we know some of this is politics, but do you have hope that it can change?
A: Yeah, it is very interesting question, you know, either in Iran or in United States. Talking about relations between Iran and the United States itself shows the importance of these two countries for each other. Iran is important to the United States. That's why so many people are talking about these relations, and of course we can see the United State also as a, an effective country in the international relations. Always, we have mentioned that correction of the policy towards Iran practically and taking steps due to the former policies of the United States from the Shah's time, during the revolution time, and all these 27 years, should be taken. And some period we have seen some announcement that we should apologies in Iran because of our behaviour, making Cu de Tas and some others in Iran. And in our understanding, they are shooting, I mean the U.S. administration and make decision and show their willingness that they would like to change their policies. And in such circumstances, definitely situation would be prepared for reconsidering by the Iranian state. I am not optimistic for that because of the, you know, approach of the United States. Even in the very clear areas are failing the American policies, we do not see serious decision is going to be made. And definitely it is a little bit difficult to change long period of more than 25, 26 years. But in my understanding, if such you know changing take place then we will prepare the ground to consider again the situation. …
Q: Last question, do you believe the U.S. will attack Iranian nuclear facilities -- and if not the U.S., Israel? Do you think that is a real possibility?
A: From the very beginning of this issue, two options were on the table. The option of co-operation and the option of confrontation. Our priority always was the first one. But due to the nature of the Americans approach, we should prepare ourselves for the second option also.
Q: And what would Iran's response be?
A: But if we move to the realities for the Americans, I have to say we do not see U.S. administrations in the position to impose another crisis for American taxpayers for the time being. And that's, that's why we do not give such a chance to the United States. And design this regime in Palestine is in the weaker position in compared to the United States. That regime is pacing with the lack of legitimate or legitimacy of its existence in the region. That is a big question mark in the mind of the public opinion. There the, the most strong philosophy which was going to be raised for the existence of this regime was raised during Mr. John F Kennedy, it was said that a land without people and the people without land was the main philosopher of existence of Israel. Both side of this philosophy was wrong, the land was not without people because the Palestinian, Muslim, Jews and the Christian were living there. And the people without, the people without land also was not correct because they were the European citizens and they had their land. During last 16 years, the Zionist regime was following this policy and the strategy to attack time to time to, to the countries in the region very rapid. Then the United Nations or some countries were coming mediating the situation and the, the Zionist regime showing, as you know, hero or it's victory against the countries in the region. For the first time after 60 years, they have failed in their policies and their army could not get and reach to the targets which they have planned in their recent aggression against the Lebanon. And the people in the region understood that, the only want against this regime is resistance. And this is one of the new element which have raised in the Middle East, you know, situation. Announcing of prime minister of this regime that we have nuclear weapons and bomb here, in my understanding, is moving from a weak position. Of course all the international, international communities, international organisations like Security Council and others are under question by not taking any steps seriously to stop this regime which announcing very clear. But we have nuclear bomb and what is the reaction? When you come to your arms nuclear issue ,what is the allegation? The allegation is maybe in the future Iran moves to have nuclear weapons, maybe. Likely. For such analysis and understanding, this is the reaction in the Security Council. And what should be the reaction to a regime in the region which everybody is looking for nuclear freedom of nuclear weapons where the Middle East, for nuclear weapons, what is the reaction? Nothing. But at the same time, announcing of having nuclear weapons shows their weak position. That is why we, we do not think that the, the Zionist regime is going to destroy its everything by making such a decision against Islamic republic (inaudible). But definitely we have learned from the, the, from our experience in this region that we should be ready, and we are ready for any development. We don't give chance to such action by the United State, as I mentioned. And we hope the parties come back to the negotiation table for nuclear issue. Still, we do believe that there are some ways for a comprehensive solution and continuing of the negotiation or discussion which took place four rounds by Largiani and Susunanah, in our understanding, is a framework which can take us to all parties' satisfaction solution. And a comprehensive solution has two important parts. The first part is recognising and realising of Iran's right to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. And the second part is protecting of non-perforation regime. We do understand, we do believe, we protect and we are ready for cooperation, very difficult cooperation. We have answer to all questions which were raised. And you know this, this activity is not an area which you can say, "Okay, today cooperation is finished." No, this co-operation should continue forever. You have to report all your activities. You have to accept the inspectors and all the, you know, monitoring system. We should follow that. All other activities are under the, are under the camera of IAEA. The inspectors are coming and going. What's the problem? We do not believe that there is not enough, you know, advance technology to monitor and to avoid divergence from the peaceful purposes of nuclear activity, the Iraq technology to, to you know to monitor the situation from one side. And from the other side, we do believe that the other parties are enough clever to, to provide formula that the activities will not have any, will not take any divergence from its peaceful purposes. I mean the nuclear activities. That is why we invite everybody at the last days of the current year [2006] to come back to negotiation. And this is what the message I have sent to some of my colleagues and we, we do hope they chose the wisdomly approach and option. Thank you very much.
Q: Thank you very much. I enjoyed your time.